WHITE FISH AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1969 (Hansard, 13 March 1969)

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I beg to move the two Orders standing in my name. When the House debated the Sea Fisheries Bill last December we said that in due course the Government would bring before Parliament a Scheme to implement the proposed new subsidy policy. The second Order, the White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969, is the promised Scheme. Together with it there is this small Amendment Scheme about which I will say something separately.
The new arrangements have been well discussed already. The industry is content with the improved support and indeed awaits eagerly the first payments, which are to be made as soon as the Scheme is approved by Parliament. I should perhaps remind your Lordships that, as well as increasing the total payments and relating the subsidy to the industry's level of profits, the Scheme is to enable the subsidy to be distributed on a new basis related to the "added value" contributed by vessels. This means that 646 it will be distributed on the basis of efficiency instead of on a flat rate related to classification and days at sea, which is the present basis. The total payments due to the industry for the first six months period will be £1,669,000 but after deducting the £481,000 already paid under the current 1968 scheme the actual payment will be £1,188,000. This will be shared between 534 vessels.
The new basis is welcomed by the industry and they have been fully consulted in drawing up the details of this scheme. The industry have a guarantee of support for three years to July 31, 1971, and while the arrangements are to be reviewed before the end of that period, the Government have said that any revised arrangements will provide a corresponding level of return for a further two years. We look forward to this improved support leading to a better and more stable future for the deep sea industry.
I should like to say a word or two about the Amendment Scheme. This makes a minor change, which relates mainly to the basis of payment for inshore vessels, but will also concern deep sea vessels until July 31 next, when the current 1968 Scheme expires and the deep sea subsidy is paid solely under the new arrangements. Hitherto, the landing of certain kinds of fish not normally sold for human consumption was excluded from subsidy. There is a prospect of an extension of these landings for fish meal manufacture, similar to the present landings of sprats and herring. This should make a useful contribution to the import saving programme of the Government and the amendment will make all species subject to the same subsidy arrangements. I commend these two Schemes to the House and I hope that they will be approved. I beg to move.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for describing these two Schemes to us, particularly for what he has told us about the White Fish Subsidy Scheme, which is most important. I am particularly glad to hear that the industry 647 has agreed to it, because this is basic and fulfils the assurance that the noble Lord gave the House when we discussed this rather more fully on the Second Reading of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968. If a subsidy has to be given to the distant water section of our fleet—and I am afraid that without it our industry could not survive the import of unlimited quantities of subsidised fish from our foreign competitors—this structure of subsidy is in my judgment the best that can be devised. It gives the maximum incentive to the crews of each vessel to maximise their catch and their profits. I think that the total liability of £4 million to the Treasury is very limited in the circumstances of the industry I should like to congratulate all those in the Ministry of Agriculture, in the Scottish Office and in the industry who have worked so hard to hammer out this Scheme. I hope that it achieves its end of encouraging the most efficient and profitable sections of the fleet to stay in business and, indeed, to expand.
There are just two points that I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. In the Second Reading debate of the Sea Fisheries Act I discussed at some length this remarkable trend of escalating Government subsidies, for which the pace has been set by all foreign Governments in their subsidies to their fishing fleets, and I asked whether Great Britain could prohibit imports to this country in the same way as is done by European countries, where literally the markets are closed to imports and reserved for their own fleets. The noble Lord informed your Lordships that there was to be a conference of EFTA countries in February or March of this year to discuss this problem and seek a solution. Would the noble Lord tell us whether this ministerial conference has been held and, if so, what was the outcome?
Secondly, I discussed the prospect of the merger which had been mooted between the Ross Group and Associated Fisheries, which together cover pretty well the whole fleet of distant water vessels. Your Lordships may remember that this merger was being promoted by the I.R.C.: it was hoped that it would strengthen the economic structure of the industry. I wonder if the noble Lord would tell us whether this merger is proceeding, where it has got to and what prospect there is of it being completed. 648 Those are the only two comments that I wish to make on the White Fish Order, and hearing from the noble Lord that the industry is panting to receive the payments I should like to speed it on its way.
I would, however, add just one comment on the Amendment Scheme which the noble Lord commended to us. This seems to be a sensible Scheme. It has one slight drawback, of which I am sure the noble Lord is aware. The good sense of it is that the subsidy will now be extended to fish which goes for the manufacture of feedingstuffs or fertilisers as well as to fish for human consumption. Obviously this is sensible, because it will encourage and give greater incentive to the production of fishmeal for fertilisers and feedingstuffs, and so will limit the amount we have to pay for it in imports. On the other hand, it does give an undesirable incentive to factory fishing, to dredging out everything in the sea, since it all goes for manufacture. This is something that has to be watched, to see that we do not get, as some countries have, a kind of specialised business of fishing for this purpose, and for this purpose alone, catching in the process all the small fry, very much to the detriment of our conservation policy. With these comments, I have much pleasure in supporting the two Orders.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for his generous welcome of these two Orders. He made three separate points. About imports, I did say in December that there would be a meeting in February or March, and I understand that the meeting will take place next week. I am assured that what the noble Lord said when we discussed this matter in December will be in the minds of the United Kingdom representatives at this meeting. Of course, it is impossible for me to say what will be the outcome of this meeting.
The position about the proposed merger is that no definite report has yet been received from the I.R.C., though I understand—and the Press seem to be even more certain than I am—that the I.R.C. are now very near the conclusion of their investigation and will soon be making their report to the Government. 649 All concerned—the I.R.C. and the two Government Departments involved, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade—are well seized of the fact that there is an element of urgency here and that all possible speed should be exercised in coming to a conclusion when the report is before the Government.
The noble Lord made some observations about the Amendment Order. I am not quite certain what substance there is in the—not exactly criticism, but the observations that he made. I am not sure whether there is a danger of effort being diverted into dredging up, as he says, of all the small stuff instead of catches for human consumption. Nevertheless, I will see that what the noble Lord has said is considered. All I would add is that at the present time upwards of £30 million worth of fishmeal is being imported a year, and clearly if we can reduce that figure it will be an advantage to the national economy. I think that answers what I was asked, and I hope, therefore, that the House will now accept these two Orders.